In the last decades, universities around the world have been facing tensions as a result of the increase of external expectations. Debates on the future of higher education highlight the need for a transition to an entrepreneurial university to better face the challenge of keeping an impactful role in the economy and society. This transition can give universities a reinvigorated role in their traditional missions and the development of their regions (Etzkowitz & Zhou, 2017; Stensaker & Benner, 2013).

There are different models for the transformation of the traditional university as described in the academic literature, such as Clark (1998, 2004), Etzkowitz (2003) and Etzkowitz, Webster, Gebhardt, and Terra (2000), Nelles and Vorley (2010a) and Rothaermel, Agung, and Jiang (2007), with emphasis on those of Clark and Etzkowitz, considered seminal in the area. In general, these models emphasize the transformation from a hybrid, Humboldtian or traditional university model, based on teaching and research, to a more engaged and entrepreneurial university (Clark, 1998, 2004; Etzkowitz, 2013; Etzkowitz & Zhou, 2017; Tijssen, 2006).

The entrepreneurial university models have been inspiring academic leaders to join the changing process of universities. However, the models are limited to explaining how a process of change takes place and the role of decision-makers in this change. Although there is extensive literature addressing the entrepreneurial university phenomenon, we identified the need for a processual analysis to provide a better understanding of the changes that occur in the transformation from a traditional university model to an entrepreneurial university model. Therefore, this study engages in the effort of shedding light on how the changing process from a traditional university model to a more entrepreneurial model takes place.

In this context, this study aims to analyze the role played by universities’ strategic management to establish the entrepreneurial orientation (EO) in the academic environment. EO has found broad support in the academic literature especially in the strategy and entrepreneurship fields, as addressed by Anderson, Kreiser, Kuratko, Hornsby, and Eshima (2015), Hitt, Ireland, Camp, and Sexton (2001), and Lumpkin and Dess (1996). EO dimensions refer to the extent managers at the strategic level are willing to take risks related to the business; to favor change and innovation pursuing competitive advantage; and to compete aggressively with other companies (Anderson et al., 2015; Covin & Slevin, 1988; George, 2011; George & Marino, 2011; Miller, 1983).

This study contributes to the approximation of EO literature, linked to the strategy field, with the empirical literature on entrepreneurial university phenomenon. EO’s academic literature concentrates on private sector firms and there is an opportunity to explore EO in the academic setting. Indeed, knowledge about EO in the academics environment is evolving, mostly focused on measuring EO in different academic structures (e.g., Abou-Warda, 2015; Diánez-González, Camelo-Ordaz, & Fernández-Alles, 2020; Krabel, 2018; Riviezzo, 2014; Todorovic, McNaughton, & Guild, 2011; Walter, Schmidt, & Walter, 2016). Quantitative studies predominate in EO, aiming to measure the relationship between behaviors and performance. These characteristics are present in several studies, such as Anderson et al. (2015), George (2011), George and Marino (2011), Lumpkin and Dess (1996), Wales (2016), and Wales, Wiklund, and McKelvie (2015).

Nevertheless, extant literature leaves a gap in the processual and qualitative studies, as shown by Covin and Miller (2014), Wales (2016), and Wiklund and Shepherd (2011). The need for qualitative studies is to provide a better understanding about the manifestation of the EO within organizations, with closer congruence between theory and management practice (Wales, 2016). This study addresses this gap, contributing to EO knowledge in the academic environment with a processual analysis to answer the following question: what is the role of the universities’ strategic management regarding the establishment of the EO in the academic environment?

To discuss how EO affects the transformation processes of traditional institutions towards an entrepreneurial university model we did a multiple case study focusing on managers’ decisions at the strategic level. The selected cases are three universities, two in Brazil and one in Sweden, which are recognized for their academic entrepreneurship approach in their environments. Based on these cases, the study reveals the influence of top-management decisions for the establishment of EO and how they can establish an entrepreneurial university approach in traditional institutions.

The term “entrepreneurial orientation” (EO) is “a corollary concept that emerged primarily from the strategic management literature” (Lumpkin & Dess, 1996, p. 136), based on Child’s strategic choice perspective (1972, 1997), in which organization managers decide on the strategic action, rather than the deterministic view of the environment. Its origin is on studies from Mintzberg (1971, 1973), Miles, Snow, Meyer, and Coleman (1978), and Miller (1983). Mintzberg (1971) identified four roles describing the managers’ control in the strategy process, such as the entrepreneur, who characterizes the manager as the designer and starts most of the controllable change in the organization. In another study, Mintzberg (1973) concluded that entrepreneurial companies tend to take more risks and are more proactive in pursuing new business opportunities.

Two subsequent studies from Miles et al. (1978) and Miller (1983) proposed typologies of companies. Miles et al. (1978) addressed three strategic types of organizations, including the prospector, which highlights the role of the entrepreneurial approach of the strategy, when companies must decide which products they must offer or which markets to enter. Miller (1983) considers EO a multidimensional concept addressing company level actions. Performance of companies is associated with the EO, i.e., companies that are less willing to take on entrepreneurial behaviors tend to achieve inferior results, compared to those who work following the entrepreneurial point of view.

Covin and Slevin (1988) refined Miller’s (1983) definition and explained EO as an effect on strategic level decision making. EO is related to taking some level of risk in strategic decisions (risk-taking dimension); to favoring change and innovation in order to gain competitive advantage (innovativeness dimension), and to compete aggressively with other companies (proactiveness dimension). These authors also explain that non-entrepreneurial or conservative companies are those in which the management style at the strategic level is decidedly averse to risk and innovation and is passive or reactive.

The EO concept evolved, and Lumpkin and Dess (1996) distinguished new variables, adding competitive aggressiveness and autonomy as essential dimensions of entrepreneurship. Studies vary in the use of these five components, with the majority still focusing on the original three. In this study, EO includes the three dimensions commonly used in the literature - proactiveness, innovativeness, and risk-taking - following Anderson et al. (2015), George (2011), and George and Marino (2011).

Miller (2011, p. 875), in a critical reflection of Miller (1983), highlights that EO supports processual analysis related to how “entrepreneurs behave in creating their “new entry” - be that entry a new firm, a new product or technology, or a new market”. Miller (2011) calls attention to the processual strength of EO, although several scales and measures have been essential in EO publications (e.g., Naldi, Nordqvist, Sjöberg, & Wiklund, 2007; Poon, Ainuddin, & Junit, 2006). The criticism of the wide use of EO scales is that EO’s studies must avoid gathering heterogeneous samples that don’t differentiate the contexts. In this sense, qualitative studies can offer contextualized findings relevant to describing particular contexts and behaviors related to EO dimensions (Miller, 2011).

Aligned to this perspective, analysis about how EO takes place in universities can shed light on contextual particularities that do not fit to EO in corporations of private sector firms. Indeed, there are already scales to measure EO within universities (e.g., Riviezzo, 2014; Todorovic et al., 2011). Nevertheless, the measures gathered with scales do not shed light on the changing process, leaving room to new qualitative studies, as suggested in Miller (2011).

Decisions and ways of achieving change towards an entrepreneurial university model can result in idiosyncratic sources of competitiveness. The local and regional context of the universities’ activity, the skills of management, and the resource capacity of each institution can be influential on EO. This argument is rooted in Child’s strategic choice perspective (1972, 1997), which drew attention to the active role of managers with the power to influence the structures of their organizations or the course of strategic actions, based on a non-deterministic position of the environment.

This transformation can give universities a reinvigorated role in their traditional missions and the development of their regions. The different means of implementing this model, along with each region’s particularities, provide a rich source that can be explored strategically by the managers of those institutions. Some universities’ tradition in the development of their regions, portrayed in a series of overlaps with society in its areas of coverage, sustains and guides a closer relationship with the entrepreneurial university model. The ability to perform these connections in a voluntarist way, between university and environment, through EO, constitutes a genuinely innovative or entrepreneurial university.

In short, the strategic position advocated here does not mean a top-down approach, but the direct, engaged, and active involvement of the university’s strategic management in the decisions inherent to the changes towards the entrepreneurial ideal, including through the definition of specific institutional policies for this purpose. In this perspective, the following theoretical proposition is presented: the EO in the university is established through the strategic posture of the management in an engaging way, and through strategic actions of voluntarist nature, supported in the non-deterministic perspective of the environment, which provide the institutional transformation. This idea is depicted in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Source: authors.

We propose that decisions made on the strategic management level are essential in the changing process of universities from a traditional model to an entrepreneurial model. We consider that the primary locus where decisions are made in the university-environment relationship, including under situations in which the economic and institutional environments influence the models and performance of organizations which work in higher education. This is related to what Etzkowitz and Zhou (2017) exposed, who highlighted the need for a strategic vision formulated and implemented by academic leadership as one of the pillars of entrepreneurial university.

Despite the isomorphic pressures on the development of the entrepreneurial university (Etzkowitz et al., 2000; Philpott, Dooley, O’Reilly, & Lupton, 2011), the perception of the environment in an indeterministic way suggests that the strategy is linked to modification and construction actions of the external environment (Bignetti & Paiva, 2002). This is in line with what was proposed by Clark (2004, 2006), who addresses the need for assertive ambition, combating inertia and accumulating experiences for the sustainability of the change process towards an entrepreneurial university model. Etzkowitz and Zhou (2017) state that the university has a crucial role in the triple helix approach, through the technology transfer, the incubation of new firms, and the conduction of regional renewal efforts.

In general, the literature about the entrepreneurial university and the several models around this theme, mainly those from Clark and Etzkowitz, address to a diversity of subjects that have a connection and are closely related, including actions and mechanisms inside and surrounding the academic environment, such as university ecosystems, patents, research commercialization, academic spin-offs, entrepreneurial behavior, graduate’s careers, among others. Consequently, there are a variety of theoretical approaches that are used to explain the empirical phenomenon and contribute to its own progress.

Klofsten, Fayolle, Guerrero, Mian, Urbano, and Wright (2019) organize the discussion around the entrepreneurial university in five key strategic challenges, pursuing the institutional transformation into effective economic and societal change agents: a) internal factors; b) external or environmental factors; c) teaching and learning entrepreneurship; d) support to different entrepreneurial pathways; e) impact measures of the entrepreneurial university. These challenges summarize the literature advancement and point out several avenues and questions for future research, as detailed by these authors.

Similarly, Centobelli, Cerchione, Esposito, and Shashi (2019) show an important overview of the concept of the entrepreneurial university. Through a systematic literature review, these authors analyzed 64 papers published in the period of 1990-2016 and the results contribute with a synthesis of the main theoretical approaches (e.g., triple helix model, grounded theory of university adaptation, strategic actions theory, model of development of an entrepreneurial university, among others) and topic area (e.g., taxonomy of entrepreneurial university definitions, factors affecting entrepreneurial university, effects of entrepreneurial issues on university activity, entrepreneurial university performance measurement).

Within universities, the central concern is to find the synergies that link the different academic missions (teaching, research, as well as entrepreneurship and innovation), which enable the institutional transformation, as suggested by Boardman and Ponomariov (2009), Etzkowitz et al. (2000), Philpott et al. (2011), and Van Looy, Landoni, Callaert, Pottelsberghe, Sapsalis, and Debackere (2011). Naturally, this process is not free from tensions and conflicts involving university departments and academics, as approached by Kalar and Antoncic (2015), Rasmussen, Moen, and Gulbrandsen (2006), and Urbano and Guerrero (2013).

Data for this research was obtained by a multiple case study. This technique is used to understand a complex, context-dependent phenomenon (Eisenhardt, 1989; Yin, 2017) and must be chosen to examine contemporary events, but without the manipulation of relevant behaviors. This paper also assumes the character of a retrospective case study, especially based on forms of data collection through interviews and documents. Retrospective perspective refers to the temporal dimension in qualitative research and consists of looking back at a process or development (Flick, 2007).

The use of the case study technique in research on the phenomenon of the entrepreneurial university is advocated by Clark (2006), who maintains that case studies are the basis for research results in specific places and times. Additionally, Wiklund and Shepherd (2011) suggest that multiple case studies on EO can be used as a basis for comparing and contrasting evidence, in the search for building theory around the exploration and dissemination of results.

Based on this technique, the unit of analysis adopted was at the organizational level; that is, the transformations that occurred in the university as a whole by pursuing an entrepreneurial university model. This definition is closely related to the essence of the EO concept defined by Miller (1983), characterized by entrepreneurial activities at the organizational level, with an emphasis on organizational structure, strategy, and leadership.

The focus of this research is concentrated on two groups: a) the institutional strategic level, including members of the rectory and direct advisors, who make the institutional macro-decisions, the institutional way, and the internal organization of resources for the implementation of institutional policies; b) complementary or support units directly involved in the intent of EO, such as technology parks, incubators, innovation agencies, technology transfer offices, among others, represented by their directors, managers or main executives.

Once the unit of analysis was defined, the research protocol for data collection procedures was adopted, validated by two experts in the field, both with theoretical knowledge on the subject and managerial experiences at the strategic level at universities. The protocol used in this research follows the structure proposed by Yin (2017), composed of four sections: a) overview of the case study project; b) field procedures; c) case study questions; d) guide to the case study report.

Regarding the choice of cases, the initial criterion used was based on the logic of the spectrum of entrepreneurial activities exposed by Philpott et al. (2011). This logic indicates that academic activities, both soft and hard, can contribute to the third academic mission. The soft-hard spectrum is related to the entrepreneurial sophistication in each academic activity, considering publishing, grantsmanship, and consulting, as softer activities, and technology parks, spin-off firms, and patenting as hard activities. In addition, it is assumed that universities that have these activities in a tangible form can reveal significant experiences in the implementation of EO, due to their trajectories in the transition towards an entrepreneurial university model.

Based on the research strategy designed through multiple case studies, three cases were investigated: two in Brazil and one in Sweden. In Brazil, the two univeristies chosen as the research subjects were the Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul (Pontifical Catholic University of Rio Grande do Sul, PUCRS) and Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro (Pontifical Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro, PUC-Rio). Tecnopuc (PUCRS’ Science and Technology Park) was elected in 2016 and 2009 as the best technology park of Brazil. Raiar, the business incubator of PUCRS, was elected in 2014 as the best incubator of companies oriented to the generation and intensive use of technologies by the National Association of Entities Promoting Innovative Enterprises (Anprotec, 2018). In the case of PUC-Rio, the most striking indicator, and also object, of this study refers to the capacity of fundraising from industry, ranking 29th among universities worldwide in the edition 2019 (THE, 2018). About 50% of the institution’s revenues originate from research projects and collaboration with private companies and government (PUC-Rio Innovation Agency [AGI], 2016), which is uncommon in the Brazilian context.

In Sweden, the research focused on the case of Lund University (LU). LU is ranked among the top 100 universities in the world, according to the Quacquarelli Symonds (QS) and Times Higher Education (THE) 2019 rankings, in the 92nd and 98th positions, respectively (QS, 2018; THE, 2018). LU ranks as the 2nd Swedish institution in the specific indicator on revenues from industry, in THE 2019 ranking (THE, 2018), which portrays its ability to transfer knowledge. It is linked to the Ideon Science Park, founded in 1983, with the collaboration between the university, the municipality of Lund, and the Wihlborgs Fastigheter AB, being the first technology park in Sweden and the second in Europe after Cambridge, in 1973 (Fehrman, Westling, & Blomqvist, 2005; Kaiserfeld, 2017; Staaf, 2016).

These particular characteristics sustain the actions and achievements obtained by the studied universities pursuing changes in their organizational model. A brief overview of the three studied higher education institutions (HEIs) is presented in Chart 1.

Chart 1

Source:elaborated by the authors based on research data.

Similar to what was exposed by Guerrero, Urbano, Cunningham, and Organ (2014), when comparing European regions, despite the common strategic objective and certain comparable economic and social conditions, entrepreneurial universities are different due to their particular characteristics. Therefore, case studies in different contexts are appropriate, given the environmental conditions for the insertion of universities and the challenges they face.

Besides, the comparison of universities from different countries offers a real opportunity for learning about entrepreneurial academics, policymakers, and professionals (Guerrero et al., 2014). Some studies have adopted this line, strictly in the contexts of developed countries, such as those developed by Clark (1998), Guerrero et al. (2014), and Kalar and Antoncic (2015). However, there is limited literature on the development of the entrepreneurial university phenomenon within emerging countries. Thus, an empirical study involving this context is important to increase the existing knowledge to better understand the accomplishment of this phenomenon in different economic and social realities (San & Sijde, 2014).

For the data collection, the present study used various procedures, labeled as direct or primary sources and indirect or secondary sources. As a direct data source, 40 “in loco” interviews (15 in PUCRS, 14 in PUC-Rio, and 11 in LU) were carried out with those main involved in implementing the EO in the researched universities, covering the two groups mentioned, that is, the members of the board and directors of the complementary or support units directly related to the third academic mission. The interviews followed a semi-structured script, based on the theoretical proposition, and were carried out from January to March 2017, in Brazil, and in June 2017 in Sweden. Each interview ranged from 46 min to 1 hour 28 min, and all of them were recorded. In addition to the primary sources, a number of secondary data was collected on the researched cases, especially through the university websites, public materials, and/or documents provided by the institutions, books, academic articles, etc.

Both data collection and analysis followed the structure of the theoretical proposition previously formulated in this article. Especially in regards to analysis, the task was guided by the comparison of the concepts that emerged as a result of fieldwork with those existing in theory, as supported by Eisenhardt (1989).

Thus, two basic procedures were adopted for the data analysis: the content analysis and data triangulation. The content analysis was used in the treatment of the interviews, which were transcribed in full. For this, the steps proposed by Cohen, Manion, and Morrison (2007) were used and the analysis was initiated by coding and categorization of the transcribed material. As suggested, the codes emerged from the content of the interviews and the subcategories originated from the literature used. The subcategories generated (strategic posture of the management; voluntary strategic actions; influencing factors; historical landmarks) derived from the previously elaborated theoretical proposition. Subsequently, the connections between the subcategories were established by comparison and the final step of the theoretical considerations was based on the results of the analysis.

As a second procedure adopted in the data analysis, triangulation was performed by cross-referencing information obtained from different data sources, including primary and secondary data. In general, the data from different sources was contrasted in several points about the issue, which gave greater validity and reliability to what was collected. Figure 2 shows a short flowchart in order to summarize the methodological procedures adopted.

Figure 2. Source: authors.

This section addresses the three researched universities. Firstly, the cases are presented and discussed individually, by analyzing the transformations carried out by the universities towards an entrepreneurial university model. The actions, mechanisms, and milestones that depict these transformations in the cases studied are used as the basis for the proposed analysis. Following, the cases are cross-analyzed in order to highlight the most significant similarities and peculiarities found in the study.

The purpose of this article was to analyze the role played by universities’ strategic management to the establishment of EO in the academic environment. The three studied cases show the key role developed by universities’ strategic management in establishing EO, based on the definitions of Anderson et al. (2015), Covin and Slevin (1988), Lumpkin and Dess (1996), and Miller (1983), through the influence on organizational transformation towards an entrepreneurial university model.

Furthermore, the different ways of EO’ establishment in the researched universities revealed several elements of proactiveness, risk-taking, and innovativeness, suitable to the academic context, under the definitions of Covin and Slevin (1988), Lumpkin and Dess (1996), and Miller (1983). The three cases presented recurrent behaviors in the implementation of the third academic mission, which is a critical requirement in the characterization of EO, as supported by Anderson et al. (2015).

On the one hand, despite the different contexts, the analysis revealed some similarities among the researched cases, which reinforces the importance of comparative studies in different countries, as accomplished by Clark (1998), Guerrero et al. (2014), and Kalar and Antoncic (2015). On the other, the analysis highlights the importance of the particularities of each case, which corroborates the researches of Nelles and Vorley (2010b), Philpott et al. (2011), and Stensaker and Benner (2013).

For the theoretical-conceptual literature on EO, the empirical evidence shows the close link of its basilar conceptual dimensions - proactiveness, risk-taking, and innovativeness - with the indeterministic perspective of the environment, in the light of that addressed by Bignetti and Paiva (2002), Child (1972, 1997), Lewin and Volberda (1999), and Miles et al. (1978). This relationship is based on the organizational adaptation capacity approached by Hodgson (2013) and Lewin and Volberda (1999) and on the adoption of voluntary behaviors by strategic management, supported by the perspective of the strategic or managerial choice of Child (1972, 1997) and Miles et al. (1978).

Similarly, for the empirical field, these aspects have important implications, since they indicate that the EO in the academic environment is established through a strategic mindset, based on the indeterministic perspective of the environment, which involves decisions committed to the third academic mission, especially long term, and non-sporadic actions. Additionally, evidence shows that teaching staff engagement - including bottom-up movement - played a significant role in organizational transformation processes for the implementation of the third academic mission.

In a broad sense, and especially for policy-makers, this study corroborates the importance of “the third task” for the academic environment and for the society as a whole, overcoming the concept of the university as “ivory tower”. The collaboration among university-industry-government and the development of actions and mechanisms that stimulate the implementation of the third academic mission are fundamental to promoting this changing process. The impact is inside universities, but mainly in the surrounding environment, as for example, the case of LU and the transformation in its region.

In spite of the voluntarism presented by the studied cases towards an entrepreneurial university model, the possibility of the influence of isomorphic pressures in the set of universities must not be ignored, as mentioned by Etzkowitz et al. (2000), especially those from national systems of higher education and from increasing competition aiming differentials and superior quality. This gap can be analyzed in the light of the institutional isomorphism, as addressed by DiMaggio and Powell (1983), and of broader research design, including the different actors involved and focused on this research line.

Regarding the chosen cases, it is highlighted that the three cases have successful paths in the process of institutional transformation towards an entrepreneurial university model, as well as exemplary practices in conducting efforts to establish EO in the academic environment. However, cases of failure or lacking internal support for institutional transformation, especially that caused by isomorphic pressures, can reveal new peculiarities and/or different results.

It should also be noted that universities in Brazil and Sweden are linked to different education and innovation systems at the national level. They produce varied influences in each university and in different contexts, especially in those of an emerging economy (Brazil) and an advanced economy (Sweden). Despite such differences, this research focused on the internal transformations and strategic behaviors carried out by the studied universities pursuing a new organizational model, based on the assumptions of the entrepreneurial university, through the establishment of EO in the academic environment.

In the logic of the academy following the empirical field, the relatively recent rise of EO in the academic environment, in many parts of the world, indicates new inquiries and curiosities to better elucidate it in different economic and social contexts. Consequently, there are several questions about this phenomenon to be investigated, which still raise doubts or new discussions from different theoretical combinations and perspectives, especially from the qualitative perspective, such as: a) the influence of institutions and government policies in the process of university transformation towards an entrepreneurial university model looks something relevant, but little explored by academia. The use of Institutional Theory can be an opportune apparatus for the analysis of such influence; b) the rise of the entrepreneurial university phenomenon in several parts of the world may lead universities to situations of isomorphic development trapped in an “iron cage”; c) the impact on regional development, provided by the establishment of EO in the academic environment, is a topic that deserves investigation, especially in regions that are less favored in their contexts or lack advanced infrastructure.